I believe this is a bug and it has already been fixed in trunk and nightly build. can you confirm?
On Nov 16, 8:23 pm, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:39:54 PM UTC-5, David Manns wrote: > > > This is all very alarming in a framework which boasts of "always > > maintaining backward compatibility" - quote taken from the preface of > > "the book". > > The intention was certainly not to break backward compatibility. If > something isn't working the same, it's a bug, not a backward compatibility > violation (unless, of course, the original behavior was a bug and was > simply being fixed). It's always a good idea to test upgrades before > deploying to production, and if you find bugs, report them -- they will > usually be fixed very quickly. Even better, test out the nightly builds or > trunk from time to time, and report bugs before they make it into stable > releases. > > Anthony
